37820 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18036 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–4028: Notice 4]

RIN 2127–AC85

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Glazing Materials

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice withdraws a

proposal in which the agency

considered amending Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205,

Glazing materials, to revise its light

transmittance requirements. The

amendments would have specified a

new procedure for testing the light

transmittance of glazing samples.

Instead of specifying that they be tested

at the currently specified 90 degree

angle, the standard would have

specified that they be tested at the acute

angle at which the glazing would be

installed in the vehicle (the rake angle).

The amendments also would have

added light transmittance requirements

for light trucks, vans, sport utility

vehicles, and buses of less than 10,000

pounds gross vehicle weight rating

(GVWR), and specified different

transmissibility requirements for the

various windows.

After reviewing the available

information, NHTSA has decided to

withdraw this proposal. The reasons for

taking this action include the following:

the cost impacts of testing at the

installed angle pursuant to the proposed

new procedure would not be adequately

offset by the potential safety benefits of

increased visibility if glazing continues

to be installed at current rake angles; the

practical limits imposed by concerns

about visual distortion will prevent rake

angles from increasing; the agency does

not want to prohibit the use of the best

present solar windshield glazing in

order to achieve slight differences in

effective light transmittance at current

rake angles; the agency wishes to better

define the relationship between light

transmittance and highway safety before

it establishes transmittance levels for

various vehicle windows; and without

controlling for the installed angle of the

glazing, setting specific transmittance

levels would not consistently and

predictably result in improved light

transmittance. Another reason for

withdrawing this proposal to establish

light transmittance levels for additional

classes of motor vehicles concerned the

fact that the proposed transmittance

levels were premised upon adopting the

proposed new test method. Since the

agency is not adopting the new method,

it can not adopt transmittance levels

selected on the basis of that method.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues: Richard Van Iderstine,

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366–5280.

For legal issues: Paul Atelsek, NCC–

20, Rulemaking Division, Office of Chief

Counsel, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590

(202) 366–2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. The current standard

B. Previous events related to this

rulemaking

1. Request for Comments

2. Report to Congress

3. Court case against tint film installers

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

A. Summary of issues analyzed

B. The proposed rule

1. Test procedure

2. Light transmittance levels

3. Vehicles covered

4. Compliance by multi-stage

manufacturers

5. Amendments to the language of FMVSS

No. 205

III. Comments on the NPRM

A. Tint film industry

B. Medical commenters

C. Safety groups

D. Law enforcement community

E. Manufacturers of motor vehicles

F. Glazing manufacturers

IV. Analysis of issues

A. Line-of-sight measurement of glazing

transmittance

B. Proposed transmittance values

V. Agency decision

VI. ‘‘Reissuance’’ of Standard No. 205

I. Background

A. The Current Standard

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49

CFR 571.205), specifies performance

requirements and permissible locations

for the types of glazing that may be

installed in motor vehicles. The

standard incorporates by reference

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) Standard Z26.1, ‘‘Safety Code for

Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing

Motor Vehicles Operating on Land

Highways,’’ as amended through 1980

(Z26). The requirements in Z26 are

specified in terms of performance tests

that the various types, or ‘‘items,’’ of

glazing must pass.

One of the tests is for luminous, or

light, transmittance. This test measures

the regular (parallel) transmittance of a

sample of the glazing, in terms of the

percentage of incident light that passes

through the glazing. During the test,

light strikes the glazing at a 90 degree

angle. To pass the test, the glazing must

allow 70 percent of the incident light to

pass through.

The amount of light transmitted

through vehicle glazing affects the

ability of the driver to see objects on the

road. Low light transmittance can make

it difficult to detect low contrast objects,

such as pedestrians, whose luminance

and coloring causes them to blend with

the background of the roadside

environment. The effect of low light

transmittance levels on the driver’s

vision is most pronounced at dusk and

night when the ambient light level is

low. This is because the ‘‘contrast

sensitivity’’ of the eye diminishes as the

overall brightness of the scene

decreases. This lower contrast

sensitivity makes it especially difficult

to discern low contrast objects. This

problem is most acute for older drivers

who have poorer contrast sensitivity.

Contrast sensitivity declines by a factor

of two about every 20 years after age 30.

Thus, older drivers have poorer dusk

and night vision.

The light transmittance requirements

must be met by all glazing installed in

windows that are ‘‘requisite for driving

visibility’’ (see Z26, table 1). In a

longstanding interpretation of this term,

NHTSA has determined that all

windows in a passenger car, with

limited exceptions not relevant here, are

considered requisite for driving

visibility.

For buses, trucks, and multipurpose

passenger vehicles (MPV’s), glazing that

meets the 70 percent light transmittance

requirements is required in the

windshield, the windows to the

immediate left and right of the driver,

and any rear or rear side windows that

are requisite for driving visibility. The

agency has not issued an interpretation

specifying which rear or rear side

windows are requisite for driving

visibility. In rear windows in buses,

trucks, and MPV’s that are not requisite

for driving visibility, items of glazing

that are not subject to the 70 percent
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37821

light transmittance requirements may be

installed.

As mentioned above, light

transmittance of glazing is measured in

a laboratory test with the glazing

perpendicular to the measuring device,

instead of at the angle at which it is

mounted in the vehicle (called the

‘‘rake’’ angle). Glazing transmits the

maximum amount of light when it is

mounted perpendicular to the line of

sight (i.e., at an angle of 90 degrees), as

in the current Standard No. 205 test. As

the mounting angle decreases, the

amount of light transmitted by the

windshield also decreases. For example,

windshield glazing with a light

transmittance of 73 percent when tested

perpendicular to the measured light

beam, would have a light transmittance

of about 65 percent when tested at a

typical windshield rake angle of 60

degrees. (A rake angle of 60 degrees

from the vertical axis places the sample

at a 30 degree angle with respect to the

horizontal light beam representing the

line of sight.)

B. Previous Events Related to This

Rulemaking

1. Request for Comments

NHTSA received four petitions for

rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205

‘‘to permit 35 percent minimum

luminous transmittance plastic film on

glazing in the side and rear locations of

passenger cars.’’ If that film were placed

on glazing with 70 percent light

transmittance, the combined effect

would be to allow an overall

transmittance of 24.5 percent.

NHTSA granted the petitions and

issued a Request for Comments on July

20, 1989 (54 FR 30427). NHTSA

received over 100 comments from a

variety of groups in response to the

Request for Comments. The comments

are available for public review in Docket

89–15, Notice 1.

NHTSA received many comments

from police departments and other

safety groups opposing darker tinting.

These commenters were concerned

about the ability of the police to see

occupants and objects in vehicles with

darker tinting and about traffic safety

risks. Some commenters opposed any

reduction in the required level of

window light transmittance under

Standard No. 205 because they believed

the current level of light transmittance

was necessary, particularly for older

drivers and for night driving. Domestic

automobile manufacturers advocated

more research to define driving

visibility needs and opposed allowing

additional tinting unless research shows

that driver and police safety would be

maintained. They further indicated that

they were pursuing technological

advances to reduce solar loads without

reducing safety.

Some commenters were supportive of

the petitions. Three German automobile

manufacturers and a European research

institute working on visibility issues

supported allowing darker tinting for

rear and rear side windows, but

opposed it for front side windows. The

petitioners and other commenters stated

that darker tinting reduces solar heat

transmittance and would increase the

comfort of vehicle occupants and reduce

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions,

thus providing an environmental

benefit.

2. Report to Congress

The House Appropriations

Committee requested NHTSA to report

to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations on the adequacy of

current regulations governing window

tinting. In March of 1991, NHTSA

issued a Report to Congress which

concluded:

• The light transmittance of windows

on new passenger cars complying with

Standard No. 205 does not present an

unreasonable risk of crash occurrence.

While it is not possible to quantify the

safety effects of lowering the light

transmittance through window tinting,

data indicate that extensive tinting can

reduce the ability of drivers to detect

objects, which could lead to an increase

in crashes.

• A change in the way light

transmittance is measured in Standard

No. 205 may be appropriate. Performing

the test at the angle the glass is installed

on the vehicle, along the driver’s line of

sight, is more representative of the real

world. Light transmittance requirements

could be based on the light transmitting

performance of production cars since, as

noted above, windows in these vehicles

provide light transmittance which does

not present an unreasonable risk of

crash occurrence.

• Because light trucks, including

pick-ups, vans and sport utility

vehicles, and buses with a GVWR of less

than 10,000 pounds (collectively

referred to in this document as light

trucks) are now used more as personal

transportation vehicles, it may be

appropriate to harmonize light

transmittance of these vehicles with the

requirements of passenger cars.

• The benefits of tinting do not

appear great enough to justify any loss

in safety that may be associated with

allowing excessive tinting of windows.

Further, technology already being

applied in production car windows can

reduce the heat build up in the

occupant compartment while preserving

the driver’s visibility. A greater

reduction in the ability of drivers to see

through the windshield, rear window or

front side windows would be expected

to decrease highway safety.

3. Court Case Against Tint Film

Installers

NHTSA initiated an enforcement case

against aftermarket tint film installers

who were installing tint film which

results in less than 70 percent light

transmittance, thereby making safety

features installed pursuant to the

requirements of Standard No. 205

inoperative. The U.S. District Court of

the Middle District of Florida ruled

against the agency, holding that

Standard No. 205 was not enforceable

against window tinting businesses

because the agency did not issue a ‘‘new

and revised’’ Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard pursuant to the second

sentence of Section 103(h) of the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (Safety Act, since codified at

49 USC Chapter 301). United States v.

Blue Skies Projects, Inc., 785 F.Supp

957, (M.D. Fla., 1991).

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)

NHTSA published an NPRM on

January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496). In the

NPRM, the agency first analyzed the

issues presented by the petition, the

Report to Congress, and public

comments submitted in response to the

Request for Comments. Then the agency

proposed a number of substantive

changes in the light transmittance

requirements.

A. Summary of Issues Analyzed

The agency examined the suggested

benefits of tinting. These included

reduction in heat and energy

transmittance, reduction in excessive

amounts of visible light, reduction in

glare, reduction in lacerations and

ejections, and increased privacy and

aesthetic concerns. NHTSA tentatively

concluded that all of these benefits were

minimal, could be better achieved

through other means such as sunglasses,

or could be achieved equally well using

untinted film.

NHTSA also examined the potential

effect on highway safety of various

levels of light transmission. NHTSA

generally concluded in its report to

Congress that excessive window tinting

reduced the ability of drivers to perceive

the driving environment, particularly

for older drivers and drivers with

spectacles. The reduction was most

pronounced when viewing low contrast

objects, especially at dusk or at night.
37822 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

NHTSA also examined the necessity for

good visibility through particular

windows. Front side windows are

necessary for viewing intersections,

making lane changes with peripheral

vision, viewing the side mirrors, and for

making eye contact with other drivers

and pedestrians who wish to cross the

driver’s path. Rear side windows are

necessary for viewing intersections with

acute angles, and for merging onto

limited access highways. Rear windows

are necessary for merging, backing, and

allowing other drivers to see the center

high mounted stop lamps.

In addition, the agency examined

research studies on the issue of tinting

safety. Based on three research studies

on the relationship between tinting and

object detection, NHTSA concluded that

the ability to detect objects decreases as

the tint level increases. Although

NHTSA concluded that low levels of

light transmittance are a safety problem,

it was unable to define the magnitude of

that problem in terms of a numerical

relationship between vehicle collisions

and tinting levels. The agency also

noted studies showing that 35 percent

light transmittance tinting would make

it difficult for police officers to detect

objects, including a drawn weapon,

inside a vehicle during traffic stops.

B. The Proposed Rule

After considering these issues, the

agency proposed to amend Standard No.

205 in two major ways. First, to account

for the effect of rake angle on light

transmittance, NHTSA proposed to

change the test procedure so that the

glazing sample’s luminous

transmittance would be viewed and

measured at the maximum installation

angle (i.e., the maximum nominal rake

angle at which glazing could be

installed in a motor vehicle). Second,

the agency proposed to specify different

light transmittance levels for the various

windows in vehicles.

1. Test Procedure

The proposed test procedure was

based on the Society of Automotive

Engineer’s (SAE) Recommended

Practice J1203, Light Transmittance of

Automotive Windshield Safety Glazing

Materials and the current Test No. 2 in

ANSI Z26. However, the agency

simplified the test by eliminating the

need to consider the seating reference

point when determining the maximum

rake angle.

2. Light Transmittance Levels

Since the proposed new test

procedure had the effect of making the

existing transmittance requirements

more stringent, NHTSA proposed to

reduce the required light transmittance

levels of the windshield to 60 percent.

This level is close to the current level

of line-of-sight transmittance for most

vehicle windshields as measured by the

proposed procedure (i.e., on average, the

transmittance levels would not have

changed from the status quo). Therefore,

the proposed reduction in light

transmittance presented no additional

safety concern. All but two currently

produced vehicles would have passed

the proposed test. NHTSA requested

comment on whether it should specify

a line-of-sight transmittance level higher

than 60 percent because a research

study indicated that permitting

transmittance as low as 60 percent

might present difficulties for spectaclewearing drivers and because the

European Economic Community was

considering proposing a 65 percent

level.

NHTSA proposed to require front side

windows to have a line-of-sight light

transmittance of not less than 60

percent. All current vehicle models

would have complied with the proposed

requirement. NHTSA chose this level

because the agency believes that the

light transmittance level for side vision

should be the same as for front vision.

Because front side windows are not

raked as much as windshields, front

side windows could have become

slightly darker under the proposed

amendment.

NHTSA proposed to require 50

percent minimum line-of-sight light

transmittance for rear windows. NHTSA

did not propose the 60 percent line-ofsight transmittance because (1) the 50

percent level is adequate for high

contrast objects, and low contrast

objects are less important in rear vision

than in frontal vision, (2) 50 percent

transmittance would be adequate to

preserve the benefits of center high

mounted stop lamps, and (3) 60 percent

transmittance would disallow a number

of current vehicle designs, for which no

safety problem has been identified.

However, the ‘‘privacy windows’’

offered as optional equipment on some

MPV’s would not be permitted under

the proposed amendment since they

have a line-of-sight light transmittance

of 20 percent or less.

NHTSA proposed to require 30

percent minimum line-of-sight light

transmittance for the rear side windows.

It chose this level because (1) all new

passenger cars and MVS (except MPVs

with optional ’privacy windows’)

currently meet these requirements, and

(2) rear side windows are less important

for driving visibility than other vehicle

windows, so darker tinting on them

might not result in measurable adverse

safety consequences.

NHTSA noted that requiring

improved reflectance of interior and

side rear view mirrors in Standard No

111, Rearview mirrors, could

compensate for any potential darkening

of the side and rear windows. The

agency requested comment on whether

those requirements would be desirable.

3. Vehicles Covered

NHTSA proposed to apply the

requirements consistently to all

passenger cars, light trucks, MPVs, and

buses with a GVWR 10,000 pounds or

less. This would have represented an

extension of light transmittance

requirements to certain unspecified rear

and rear side windows in light trucks

that NHTSA has said in interpretations

are not requisite for driving visibility.

NHTSA observed that some of these

passenger vehicles were being sold with

glass having very low light

transmittance.

4. Compliance by Multi-stage

Manufacturers

Some light trucks are manufactured in

more than one stage or altered after they

have been completed and certified by

the original manufacturer. Under 49

CFR Part 567, a final-stage manufacturer

must certify that the completed vehicle

complies with all applicable safety

standards and an alterer must certify

that the altered vehicle continues to

comply with all applicable safety

standards. (Throughout the rest of this

document, the term ‘‘final-stage

manufacturer’’ is used to refer to both

final-stage manufacturers and alterers.)

A practical impact of extending light

transmittance requirements to certain

rear and rear side windows in light

trucks would have been to require finalstage manufacturers to certify

compliance with light transmittance

requirements for rear and rear side

windows, if such windows are present

in a vehicle, as they now do for front

windshields and front side windows.

NHTSA believed that final-stage

manufacturers would generally be able

to certify compliance with the expanded

light truck requirements in Standard No.

205 without conducting compliance

testing, because they could continue to

rely on the certification of the prime

glazing manufacturer. The prime glazing

manufacturer would certify that its

glazing material would comply with the

light transmittance requirements of the

standard if installed in a vehicle at up

to a certain rake angle. A final-stage

manufacturer would be able to rely on

the certification so long as it installed
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37823

the glazing at an angle not less than the

specified angle.

5. Amendments to the language of

FMVSS No. 205

To effectuate these changes, NHTSA

proposed adding sections to the

standard describing the test procedure

and the transmittance requirements for

the various windows. The NPRM also

proposed numerous changes to the

sections specifying where the various

items of glazing described in Z26 can be

installed in vehicles. Basically, the

changes would have taken those items

of glazing that could be installed in

areas requisite for driving visibility and

tested under the current test procedure

of Z26, and restricted them to use in

trucks, buses, and MPVs with greater

than 10,000 pounds GVWR. At the same

time, the NPRM proposed to create

corresponding new items of glazing

(item 2A instead of item 2, for example)

that would have been tested according

to the proposed test procedure and

permitted to be installed in passenger

cars and light trucks. NHTSA also

proposed to designate a new kind of

bullet-resisting glazing that would have

85 percent of the transmittance of the

permanent vehicle glazing.

III. Comments on the NPRM

The nearly 1,000 comments on the

NPRM were predominantly negative.

Over 90 percent of the comments came

from automobile window tint film

installers, distributors, and

manufacturers, and from consumers,

although most of these were form

letters. There were also comments from

law enforcement personnel and

organizations, legislators, physicians,

highway safety groups, automobile

manufacturers, and members of the

glazing industry. The comments are

summarized below, grouped according

to the constituency that they represent.

A. Tint Film Industry

The tint film industry (tinters) of

5,000 businesses employing 20,000

people and represented by the

International Window Film Association

(IWFA), opposed the proposal and

urged NHTSA to amend the standard

along the lines of their original petition.

IWFA’s extensive comment was

consistent with, and included nearly

every argument made by, the other

members of the industry. It stated that

there was no justification for NHTSA to

propose higher levels of light

transmittance than the levels for which

they had petitioned. It insisted that the

total transmittance be lowered to 24.5

percent. It also disputed NHTSA’s

jurisdiction over their industry, citing

the Blue Skies case.

IWFA commented that there was no

safety problem with tint film. It stated

that one eighth of all cars have tint film,

and many MPV’s have privacy glass, yet

these vehicles have demonstrated no

safety problem. It further stated that no

data had been submitted to the docket

proving a safety problem, that no tinter

was aware of any lawsuits or customer

complaints alleging that tint film was a

safety problem, and that virtually all

consumers commented that there was a

safety benefit to the film. In addition, it

asserted that most police commenters

support the state tint laws, most of

which allow more tinting (usually 35

percent total) than Standard No. 205.

In support of its position, IWFA

submitted research studies that it had

commissioned. Its studies concluded

that 35 percent tint film does not affect:

(1) The ability of police to see into

vehicles at night or at dusk; (2) driver

detection of low contrast targets at night

or at dusk; or (3) older driver

performance.

IWFA also criticized the conclusions

that the agency drew from the research

cited in the NPRM. It stated that two of

the studies were unrealistic, poor

quality, or carelessly designed and

conducted. In IWFA’s view, the third

study actually supported the use of dark

tint films behind the driver.

IWFA asserted that the regulatory

flexibility analysis in the NPRM grossly

undervalues the benefits of tinting

because it did not consider the aggregate

benefits of tinting. It especially noted

the medical benefits of protection

against harmful radiation, and the

reduction of solar load with consequent

reduction in fuel consumption and CFC

emissions.

IWFA also stated that NHTSA

underestimates the economic impact of

the rule on the tinting industry.

According to an IWFA survey, 77

percent of all tinters, which are

predominantly small businesses, stated

that they would be put out of business

by NHTSA’s proposed rule.

IWFA stated that NHTSA, in

performing its cost-benefit analysis,

should consider that different areas of

the country (e.g., the Sunbelt versus the

Northeast) derive different levels of

benefit from tinting. It stated that, for

this reason, a uniform national standard

for window tint is inappropriate and

that regulation should be left to vary

among the States.

B. Medical Commenters

The medical commenters were

divided on the issue of tinting. Two

optometrists wrote in support of the

NPRM. One Arizona doctor supported

the NPRM and does not believe that

ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a significant

issue. However, two other doctors

commented that they prescribe tint film

for protection from UV radiation. A

medical researcher offered an extensive

comment on the need for tint film,

warned of skin conditions and drug

sensitivities to even visible light, and

concluded that a thriving tint film

industry was necessary for patients.

C. Safety Groups

Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety (Advocates) opposed the NPRM

because that group believed it would

unnecessarily lower windshield and

front side window performance. It also

stated that it believed that the benefits

of international harmonization are

diluted by unacceptable light

transmittance of the rear and rear side

windows. Advocates did not express a

strong opinion on the change in the test

procedure to measure transmittance at

the installed angle.

The Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety (IIHS) supported the proposed

transmittance requirements for the

windshield and front side windows, and

generally supported the proposed

transmittance measurement procedure.

However, it opposed the lower

transmittance requirements for the rear

and rear side windows. In support of its

position, IIHS cited research that it

sponsored on the results of reduced

transmittance on rearward visibility.

The study concluded that older drivers

would fail to see low contrast

pedestrians up to 83 percent of the time

through glazing tinted to 22 percent

transmittance. It concluded that

transmittance levels below 53 percent

(measured perpendicular to the glass)

would dangerously reduce nighttime

visibility.

D. Law Enforcement Community

The law enforcement community was

divided over the issue of tinting, but

was generally opposed to the 30 percent

transmittance requirements for the rear

side windows due to security concerns.

Fourteen individual officers wrote to

say that they support and use tint film.

Another 232 officers opposed the NPRM

because of concerns about visibility

through the darker rear side windows.

Forty-four police departments and

State motor vehicle administrations

commented on the proposal. Five

supported the NPRM. Thirty-three

opposed the NPRM because of the

darker rear side windows. Six opposed

it because it does not allow tinting as

dark as that permitted by the state.

Fifteen were opposed because they did
37824 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

not like the new measurement

procedure. Thirteen favored consistent

rules for cars and vans. Some of the

State agencies believe that the current

rule allows States to set transmittance

levels, and that the NPRM would

preempt State laws for the first time.

Police in some States ran tests of

visibility of the interior of the vehicle to

a person standing outside the vehicle

and looking in through glazing with

different levels of transmittance.

Virginia and Maine found 28 percent

transmittance to provide unsatisfactory

visibility. New York found 39.5 percent

unsatisfactory. Maine and New York

found 40 percent and 58 percent levels

of transmittance, respectively, to be

satisfactory.

E. Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles

Most of the manufacturer commenters

urged that the current standard be

maintained until further research

indicates a safety need for a change.

Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, and the

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers

Association (now known as the

American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA)) all asserted that

NHTSA had demonstrated no safety

need for the proposal. They cited

NHTSA’s own conclusion in its Report

to Congress that the current light

transmittance requirements do not pose

an unreasonable risk of crash

occurrence. They urged NHTSA to

conduct research to quantitatively relate

driver visibility needs to crash

occurrence before regulating in this

area. GM stated that NHTSA should not

single out lighting in its analysis from

other interdependent factors, such as

glare and driver fatigue, relating to crash

avoidance.

The foreign vehicle manufacturers

generally supported the proposed

measurement procedure. Mercedes Benz

gave unqualified support to the

measurement procedure. Toyota and

Suzuki both agreed in principle with the

line-of-sight measurement method.

However, Suzuki opposed the

variability that the new procedure

would introduce and instead

recommended retaining the existing test

and adding a mathematical formula to

adjust the results to take the rake angle

into account. Volkswagen stated that the

procedure was incomplete because the

optical systems, procedures, and

definitions for certain terms were

inadequately specified. Volkswagen and

Fiat both recommended the adoption of

the European test procedure.

The domestic manufacturers all

opposed the new measurement

procedure. Chrysler stated that

NHTSA’s method of defining the

installation angle was not objective

because sometimes the test installation

angle might be higher than the actual

angle. Ford and the AAMA asserted that

simply changing window trim

components on a single vehicle model

could alter the test installation angle,

and therefore the measured

transmittance, even though these

changes would not affect the real world

installation angle and line-of-sight

transmittance. Some of these

commenters stated that NHTSA was

wrong to base the procedure partly on

SAE Recommended Practice J1203,

because the development of reflective

coated glazing materials had caused the

industry to reassess that practice’s

adequacy and, after the NPRM was

published, to take steps to withdraw it.

Ford, GM, and Chrysler also claimed

that NHTSA had underestimated the

costs of complying with the new test

procedure. Ford reported a round-robin

test among the manufacturers to support

its claim that accurate transmittance

measurements could not be made

through glazing at windshield rake

angles, and concluded that compliance

costs would be higher, if indeed the test

procedure were repeatable enough to

allow certification at all.

Some commenters stated that the

procedure was impracticable because

the instrumentation necessary to

implement it does not exist. Chrysler

stated that there are no instruments

designed to measure transmittance

repeatable with the test specimen at an

angle, that it is impractical to try to

eliminate all extraneous light, and that

existing test equipment would be prone

to variability. Hitachi Instruments also

commented that there is no

commercially available equipment, but

said that NHTSA’s procedure could be

implemented using spectrophotometers,

if certain changes were made as Hitachi

recommended.

The foreign automobile manufacturers

had mixed reactions to the various

proposed transmittance levels.

Mercedes Benz gave unqualified

support to all the proposed

transmittance levels. Volkswagen agreed

with all the proposed levels except for

the 50 percent for the rear window,

which it urged be lowered to 40 percent.

Toyota opposed all the proposed levels

except the 30 percent for the rear side

window, stating that NHTSA’s report

shows that 50 vehicle models, and many

of Toyota’s current models, would not

be in compliance due to their rake angle

or the fact that they employ solar energy

reflecting glass. Suzuki and Fiat

supported the 60 percent level but

opposed any higher level.

The domestic vehicle manufacturers

all opposed the light transmittance

requirements on safety grounds

primarily for the reason given above,

i.e., that NHTSA had no research

proving that there was a safety problem

or that it had chosen the correct

transmittance levels in the various

windows. Ford stated that visibility

decreases at a constant rate as light

transmittance decreases—therefore,

without a break in the curves that could

be used as a critical value, the

specification of any particular value was

arbitrary.

Ford criticized the research studies

that the agency relied on to select the

proposed transmittance levels. It stated

that the NHTSA research was

unrealistic because it used passenger

cars in a laboratory environment rather

than vehicles typically equipped with

privacy glass. Ford cited a GM study

indicating that drivers of vehicles

equipped with privacy glass would

likely compensate for decreased

visibility, as a result of the higher

seating positions and belt lines, by using

the vehicle’s larger side view mirrors.

Ford also submitted an analysis of

National Automotive Sampling System

(NASS) data that it claimed showed that

privacy glass equipped vans have a

better safety record than station wagons.

The commenters also cited the loss of

benefits of preventing excessive

amounts of glare, visible light, and

dangerous UV radiation. GM suggested

that the loss of daytime safety that

would result from disallowing darker

tinting might more than offset any

increase in nighttime safety.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler all asserted

that the proposed transmittance

requirements would also increase costs.

They all commented that less-tinted

glazing would increase the solar load

and necessitate a redesign of the air

conditioning systems to achieve higher

capacity, possibly resulting in a loss of

fuel economy. Ford even suggested that

body redesign might be necessary to

provide for larger grills. GM stated that

the additional radiation and heat

reaching the inside of the vehicle would

cause more rapid degradation of the

instrument panel, seats, and other

interior materials. GM submitted

computer modeling studies of interior

vehicle temperatures with different

glazing materials. GM concluded that it

would have to find or develop new,

probably more expensive materials and

possibly even redesign instrument

panels. Also, it asserted that recently

introduced heat absorbing and reflective

coated windshields would not be able to

be used with installation angles greater

than 60 degrees.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37825

Nearly all vehicle manufacturers were

opposed to the elimination of privacy

glass on the rear and rear side windows

of light trucks. They also pointed out

that there had been no customer

complaints about these products,

despite heavy market penetration (50–

80 percent) on vehicles where it was

offered as an option. GM stated that,

given the safety-consciousness of its

consumers, the absence of complaints

was, in itself, an indication that privacy

glass presented no safety problem.

Toyota suggested that elimination of

privacy glass would result in more

vehicle theft, as the cargo became more

visible from the outside. In addition,

several commenters asserted that there

are no available alternative glazing

materials that can match current privacy

glass in solar rejection and appearance,

and that development of these glazing

materials would take at least five years.

Some commenters stated that NHTSA

should clarify what is meant by the term

‘‘requisite for driving visibility.’’ Stating

that the proposal would divorce the new

transmittance requirements from the

portion of Z26 that refers to the term,

Mercedes Benz suggested that NHTSA

add a definition for ‘‘shade bands’’ and

declare them not requisite for driving

visibility. Suzuki requested that a

definition of the phrase be included in

the standard.

F. Glazing Manufacturers

PPG Industries (PPG) and Libby

Owens Ford (LOF) both emphasized the

significant research and investments

they had made in developing solar and

heat reduction glazing. PPG and LOF

believe that the proposed transmittance

requirements in the standard would

eliminate both the new glazing and the

use of standard products by the

industry. LOF opposed all aspects of the

rulemaking, but recommended various

lower transmittance values that would

allow the continued use of existing glass

products, in the event that NHTSA

planned to implement the proposal.

PPG also stated that the lead time

required to produce new products that

meet the proposed requirements would

necessitate the temporary use of less

effective materials. LOF estimated that

compliant solar control glazing would

take five years to develop and test.

PPG stated that heat resistant glazing

is more effective than NHTSA assumed

in the NPRM, because the heat transfer

rate from the glass to the outside air is

higher than the heat transfer rate from

the glass to the vehicle interior. PPG and

LOF also asserted, without providing

data, that fuel economy would be

reduced by up to 10 percent, or 1.0–1.5

mpg without solar control glass. These

and other commenters stated that

steeply raked windshields have the

greatest need for solar rejection glazing,

yet are also the most likely to be

restricted in its use by the proposed

transmittance requirements.

The glazing manufacturers asserted

that NHTSA overestimated the relative

impact of light transmission on visual

acuity. PPG conducted vision studies at

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that it

said indicate that other factors, such as

age, road condition, and glare affect

visual acuity more than windshield

light transmission reduction (down to

50 percent). At night, with lights

shining in the driver’s eyes, the reduced

windshield transmittance reduced

driver visibility by less than one

percent. LOF submitted a study

conducted in cooperation with GM and

Cornell University that suggested that

night driving was actually improved

when tinted glass was substituted for

clear glass. Regarding the safety of

police, LOF suggested that NHTSA

consider the effect of external

reflectivity of the outside surface of the

glazing and include in the standard a

maximum exterior reflectance of 25

percent.

Glazing manufacturers also

commented that the proposed test

procedure is impractical and

unnecessary, and would increase costs.

PPG stated that the test is complex,

requires very sophisticated and

expensive instrumentation and

computer software, including an optical

alignment system and a double beam

ratio recording spectrophotometer. LOF

estimated that this equipment would

cost $500,000. In addition, LOF

estimated that its certification costs for

the 175 types of its glazing would rise

from $230,000 to $730,000 annually

because it would have to assign

different model numbers to the same

glass specifying its use in front side

windows, rear side windows, and rear

windows.

LOF commented that glazing parts

that are manufactured close to the lower

limit of transmission may fail the

standard at the assembly site

(presumably because they are installed

at a greater rake angle than anticipated),

rather than at the glass manufacturing

plant where remedial actions are

possible. LOF suggested that the

standard should permit calculating the

angled transmittance values from the

normal transmittance values using a

series of curves.

Finally, the agency received a

September 1995 report from DRI/

McGraw-Hill, and a similar docket

comment from LOF, indicating that rake

angles have reached a practical

maximum. The study of glazing design

trends was conducted for Monsanto, a

supplier of automobile glass, and was

based on reviews of the technical

literature, secure interviews with

industry, OEM, and government

sources, and statistics run on market

profile data. The report concluded that

further increases in rake angles would

be limited both by laminate-caused

distortion and by viewing glare design

considerations to a range of 63 to 66

degrees of rake. NHTSA believes the

actual maximum is slightly higher,

because it knows of one production

vehicle with a 68 degree rake angle. If

these conclusions are correct, the recent

trend toward increasing rake angles will

abate.

IV. Analysis of Issues

The commenters have suggested a

variety of arguments for why NHTSA

should not go forward with its proposal.

NHTSA is relying on some of those

arguments in its decision to withdraw

the proposal, but not on others. This

section identifies some of those

arguments that NHTSA finds

compelling, and some that it does not

find compelling. The following section,

Section V, summarizes the main reasons

for the agency’s decision.

A. Line-of-Sight Measurement of Glazing

Transmittance

NHTSA continues to believe that a

line-of-sight measurement technique

would have many advantages. The

technique measures the effective

transmittance of the glazing as it is used

in the real world. It would also allow

the nearly vertical rear windows in

trucks and some passenger cars to be

more heavily tinted than the more

slanted glazing in most car windows

without a relative loss of visibility. The

current test procedure, although easy to

perform, has the disadvantage of

allowing vehicles with the same glazing

to have radically different effective

transmittance values, depending on the

rake angle of their windows.

However, the commenters have raised

significant questions about the

practicability of the proposed

procedure. NHTSA agrees that the

procedure is more complex. New,

expensive equipment would have to be

purchased and, perhaps even in some

cases, developed in order to test the

transmittance of glazing at its installed

angle. NHTSA believes that the

certification costs would also increase,

although probably not so much as LOF

suggests. The transmittance for a

particular type of glazing that is

installed at a variety of angles in

different vehicles would, as a practical
37826 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

matter, only have to be tested at the

maximum angle at which it is installed.

Only in the unlikely event that a vehicle

manufacturer always installed glazing

that is tinted to the maximum extent

allowed, given its installation angle,

would it become necessary to make

glazing in a large number of shades to

match installation angles.

NHTSA does not agree, however, that

it is impossible to measure

transmittance at the installation angle.

U.S. manufacturers claimed that, for

coated glass, accurate measurements

and calculations are impossible.

Regarding Ford’s round-robin tests to

demonstrate that measurements could

not be made at windshield rake angles,

NHTSA disagrees with Ford’s

conclusion. The problem in Ford’s

testing was that one company was

unable to make accurate measurements,

apparently because the required sample

size did not fit that company’s test

apparatus. The measurement scatter for

the other companies (about 2 percent)

was no greater for the solar reflective

glazing than for clear laminated glass.

There is some instrumental variation

inherent in any measurement.

NHTSA believes that the approach of

measuring the transmittance normal to

the glazing and then using a formula to

calculate the theoretical transmittance at

the installed angle would be practical.

This is the approach recommended by

LOF and the Japanese automobile

manufacturers. The Japanese

manufacturers suggested a

computational method that necessitates

only laboratory work to convert normal

transmittance measurements at the

manufacturing plant to transmittance

values at angles. Adoption of this

approach would solve any problems

associated with measuring coated glass

at angles.

There would still be increased costs

associated with determining

transmittance by calculation. To the

extent that manufacturers want to install

the darkest possible glass, there would

still be a multiplication of the different

shades of glazing corresponding to the

various installation angles. If this

occurred, it would result in increased

inventory costs from having to produce

and maintain a supply of a greater

variety of tinted glazing.

B. Proposed Transmittance Values

NHTSA is also withdrawing the

portion of the proposal that specified

different light transmittance levels for

the various vehicle windows. There are

several reasons for taking this action.

First, the agency wants to obtain more

data defining the relationship between

transmittance and safety before setting

different light transmittance levels,

especially in light of the absence of

support for the proposed values. Ideally,

the additional data would include

statistics concerning the involvement of

vehicles with tinted windows in

crashes, but this is problematic, given

the existing data collection mechanisms.

The presence or absence of tint film is

not recorded on State crash report

forms. In addition, many crashes that

involve backing vehicles go unrecorded

because they occur in parking lots and

driveways, areas that the agency’s

databases do not cover. NHTSA will

consider how to capture these data in

the future.

Second, if the manufacturers are not

required to account for the effect of the

installed angle of the glass when

measuring light transmittance,

promulgating a larger set of specific

transmittance values for glazing would

not necessarily result in the desired

levels of line-of-sight transmittance,

because of the wide variety of window

rake angles. For example, two vehicle

models using the same 50 percent

transmittance glass (measured

perpendicular to the window) in the

rear window would have very different

actual transmittances if the windows on

one model were significantly more

raked than on the other. Setting 60, 50,

and 30 percent transmittance values for

various windows would give a false

impression of regulatory precision

because the variability in rake angles

would generate a much wider range of

in-use transmittance values.

Third, given the decision to withdraw

the proposal to specify testing glazing at

its installed angle, there would have

been a scope of notice problem if the

agency had adopted the proposed light

transmittance levels. The proposal had

two interdependent parts: (1) The

proposed light transmittance levels; and

(2) the proposed new test method. The

adoption of the transmittance levels was

premised upon changing the test

method from the current procedure of

testing at a right angle to the glazing to

a new procedure of testing the glazing

at the same angle at which an occupant

would look through the glazing as it is

installed in a vehicle. For any given

piece of glazing, testing it at a right

angle yields higher transmittance values

than testing it at an acute angle, i.e., the

installed angle. Since the agency is not

adopting the new test method, it can not

adopt transmittance levels premised on

adopting that method. Even if the

agency had concluded, based on the

comments and other available

information, that it were nevertheless

desirable to go ahead and adopt new

light transmittance levels, the proposed

levels would have had to be adjusted

upward to offset the effects of retaining

the current test method. However,

adjusting the levels upward, and then

adopting them, would have been

beyond scope of notice.

Although the agency is withdrawing

this proposal, NHTSA wants to

emphasize that it does not accept the

proposition advanced by some

commenters that the agency cannot

regulate in this area without

numerically linking crash data to

specific light transmittance values.

Isolating the contribution of light

transmittance from the contributions of

the other interrelated driver, vehicle,

highway, and environmental factors that

cause crashes is extremely difficult.

Predicting the effectiveness of

countermeasures such as uniform lineof-sight light transmittance at certain

values is even more difficult. Although

NHTSA attempts, within its capabilities,

to quantify the benefits of its actions, it

still has a duty to regulate when such

regulations would meet the need for

motor vehicle safety, even in areas with

inherent uncertainty. Therefore,

especially for the crash avoidance

standards, decisionmaking necessarily

rests in part on policy judgment.

The agency is not basing its decision

to withdraw the proposal on the

research data submitted by IWFA

regarding the effect of different levels of

light transmittance on object detection.

The researchers employed by IWFA

used a simulator-type experiment in an

attempt to demonstrate that glazing with

transmittance as low as 17 percent did

not interfere with object detection

during left turns, backing, or lane

changing. The value of the simulation is

questionable, since the actions were

sequential, and therefore less

challenging than an actual driving

experience in which a driver must

operate the vehicle controls at the same

time he or she is attempting to look

through the glazing and detect objects

outside the vehicle in the driving

environment. Further, the method of

characterizing the average contrast of

the targets may be misleading because

the targets were not homogeneous in

color or reflectivity (e.g., it is easier to

see someone in a dark suit if he or she

is wearing a white hat). NHTSA also

does not regard a 22 percent target

detection failure rate as good

performance.

In fact, most research indicates that

light transmittance and safety are

related. In 10 of the 15 investigations of

target detection with varying light

transmittance, there were reductions in

the subjects’ abilities to identify and

detect targets corresponding with
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37827

reductions in transmittance. The agency

believes that the few investigations in

which there was not any significant

relationship used inappropriate

experimental performance criteria,

target contrast, illumination, and task

difficulty. Some did not even use

glazing with transmittances of less than

70 percent. NHTSA concludes that the

most credible studies confirm the

common-sense relationship between

light transmittance and target

identification.

In response to those commenters that

believed the NPRM would for the first

time preempt States from setting their

own transmittance requirements,

NHTSA notes this would not be the

case. Federal law already preempts

States from setting any different level of

transmittance for regulated windows on

new vehicles at the time of sale. Federal

law also preempts States from allowing

businesses to make inoperative the

transmittance levels on regulated

windows of used vehicles. However,

States are free to set and enforce lower

minimum transmittance levels on

regulated windows for vehicles to be

licensed in or used in the State.

Similarly, States are free to set and

enforce transmittance levels for

windows not regulated under the

Federal standard (e.g., the rear and rear

side windows of light trucks). The

States are free to prohibit dark windows

in these vehicles if they believe it is

necessary for the safety of police

officers.

V. Agency Decision

After reviewing the available

information, NHTSA has decided to

withdraw the proposal regarding the

light transmittance requirements of

Standard No. 205, for the following

reasons:

(1) While the proposal to measure

light transmittance at the installed angle

has theoretical merit, the proposed

requirements would add costs for

manufacturers, in the form of increased

testing, certification, and inventory

costs, which would be passed on to

consumers without, as noted below,

providing any assurance of

commensurate additional benefits.

(2) There is limited prospect of

commensurate increases in visibility

and safety. The agency believes that,

barring unforeseen advances in glass

properties, windshield rake angles have

now reached a practical limit of about

66 to 68 degrees due to the need to

avoid visual distortion. If this is true,

the recent trend toward greater rake

angles will not continue. Thus, one of

the agency’s concerns when issuing the

NPRM is now moot. At windshield rake

angles of 66 to 68 degrees, there would

be little practical improvement in

windshield visibility between the

proposed regulation and the current

regulation to offset the increased costs.

(3) The proposed amendment would

have had the practical effect of limiting

solar reflective windshields to a rake

angle of about 63 degrees. The

difference in transmittance between the

same windshield at rake angles of 63

degrees and 66 degrees is slight and not

commensurate to the cost of limiting

vehicle design or the changes that might

be forced on glass technology.

The agency intends to monitor

developments in this area. Should the

factors limiting rake angle be overcome

in the future and more extreme rake

angles become a reality, the agency may

revisit the issue.

(4) NHTSA finds persuasive the

industry comments that the proposal

would make solar control glazing less

feasible and more costly for

windshields. The windshield is the

principal point of entry of solar heat

into the interior of most vehicles.

Increased rake angles exacerbate solar

heating by presenting a more favorable

angle for solar radiation and a greater

uninsulated surface area. A type of

windshield glazing which reflects

infrared solar radiation, while retaining

the 70 percent perpendicular visible

light transmittance required by the

present regulation, has been developed

for vehicles with high rake angles. Since

the proposal would have only affected

vehicles with the highest rake angles

(over 63 degrees), a possible unintended

consequence would have been to bar the

use of the most effective solar control

windshield glazing on the vehicles with

the greatest need of it. Since the agency

no longer foresees a continuing trend

toward greater windshield rake angles,

it is not inclined to prohibit the use of

the best currently available solar control

windshield glazing for the sake of

effective light transmittance differences

that are very small at the rake angles

that are possible, given the limits on

rake angles imposed by visual

distortion.

(5) NHTSA wishes to better define the

relationship between light transmittance

and highway safety before requiring

differing transmittance values for

different vehicle windows.

(6) Without line-of-sight

measurements, setting specific

transmittance values would not result in

consistent actual light transmittance.

The wide range of window rake angles

would result in different line-of-sight

transmittance values, even when the

drivers of vehicles with different rake

angles are looking through identical

glazing. Therefore, promulgating

graduated transmittance values would

give a false sense of precision.

(7) The decision to withdraw the

proposal to establish light transmittance

levels for additional classes of motor

vehicles was also based on the fact that

the proposed transmittance levels were

premised upon adopting the proposed

new test method. Since the agency is

not adopting the new method, it can not

adopt transmittance levels selected on

the basis of that method.

VI. ‘‘Reissuance’’ of Standard No. 205

The light transmittance requirements

for Standard No. 205 were originally

adopted pursuant to the first sentence of

former section 103(h) of the National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

(Safety Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1392(h), as the

‘‘initial’’ standard based on an

‘‘existing’’ standard (i.e., ANSI Z26).

The second sentence of that section

provided that ‘‘new and revised

standards’’ should be issued ‘‘on or

before January 31, 1968.’’

Section 103(h) was repealed in

conjunction with the 1994 codification

of the Safety Act into 49 U.S.C. Chapter

301. The House Judiciary Committee

Report accompanying that codification

states that the section was repealed

because it had already been ‘‘executed.’’

This supports the agency’s view that

section 103(h) did not impose a

continuing duty upon the agency to

reissue each of the initial standards that

had been based on safety standards that

existed prior to enactment of the Safety

Act. Nevertheless, to the extent that

former section 103(h) could have been

construed as requiring a reexamination

and reissuance of such standards, the

present rulemaking proceeding

constitutes such a reexamination and

reissuance of the current standard.

This reissuance does not affect the

requirements of the standard, but

simply reaffirms and republishes the

requirements as they presently exist in

49 CFR part 571.205. For this reason, no

regulatory analyses have been

conducted.

Issued: July 8, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–18704 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P